3 ms·

I agree to some extent, but shouldn't some decisions require more than a simple majority?

WillPostForFood 10y ago
Definitely, but if it only takes a majority to do something, it should only take a majority to undo it.
rayiner 10y ago
Arguably, no. That means the current population isn't really in charge--some anointed holy men who wrote in the supermajority requirement get to override the wishes of the current population.
- deathanatos 10y ago
  But is it a bad thing for the population to not be fully in charge? Isn't the point of "tyranny of the majority"[1] that sometimes the majority can/will make the wrong decision? Part of electing representatives, to me, is that I hope the would make the tough calls and do the right thing, and not the popular thing. Can not part of representation (if it could be made to work well) be to defer to a person's wisdom? Certainly, the majority of the population is not even remotely qualified in the area of computer encryption, for example — should they, with no knowledge of the subject — be making decisions on how to legislate it?[2] (It's for reasons like this that I'm interested in forms of government where you can delegate your vote on topics to someone with more expertise or trust in that area; my hope being that it results in better decision-making than what a simple majority is capable of.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority [2]: Though sadly, in the US at least, I don't think our form of representation adequately handles niche issues like that.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > But is it a bad thing for the population to not be fully in charge? Isn't the point of "tyranny of the majority" that sometimes the majority can/will make the wrong decision? People have very different opinions on this. I think if you're going to take away peoples' natural freedom and subject them to the yoke of government,[1] it is a moral imperative that they, not holy men, control that apparatus. [1] Which I think is necessary--I have no anarchist leanings.
gravypod 10y ago
Not in a democracy where the government is ruled by the demos, not the state or an elite. If Brits hold in their minds, which many do, that their government is to serve the people then the majority is the most important factor.

Definitely, but if it only takes a majority to do something, it should only take a majority to undo it.

Arguably, no. That means the current population isn't really in charge--some anointed holy men who wrote in the supermajority requirement get to override the wishes of the current population.

deathanatos 10y ago
But is it a bad thing for the population to not be fully in charge? Isn't the point of "tyranny of the majority"[1] that sometimes the majority can/will make the wrong decision? Part of electing representatives, to me, is that I hope the would make the tough calls and do the right thing, and not the popular thing. Can not part of representation (if it could be made to work well) be to defer to a person's wisdom? Certainly, the majority of the population is not even remotely qualified in the area of computer encryption, for example — should they, with no knowledge of the subject — be making decisions on how to legislate it?[2] (It's for reasons like this that I'm interested in forms of government where you can delegate your vote on topics to someone with more expertise or trust in that area; my hope being that it results in better decision-making than what a simple majority is capable of.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority [2]: Though sadly, in the US at least, I don't think our form of representation adequately handles niche issues like that.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > But is it a bad thing for the population to not be fully in charge? Isn't the point of "tyranny of the majority" that sometimes the majority can/will make the wrong decision? People have very different opinions on this. I think if you're going to take away peoples' natural freedom and subject them to the yoke of government,[1] it is a moral imperative that they, not holy men, control that apparatus. [1] Which I think is necessary--I have no anarchist leanings.

gravypod 10y ago

Not in a democracy where the government is ruled by the demos, not the state or an elite. If Brits hold in their minds, which many do, that their government is to serve the people then the majority is the most important factor.